Reply With Quote
Any fool can ask answerable questions.
Benghazi is around because of all the unanswered questions.
Any fool can ask answerable questions.
[QUOTE=spursncowboys;7957672]Benghazi is around because of all the unanswered questions.[/QUOT]
how many Repug witch hunting panels said they have found NOTHING to beat on Hillary with?
now this Confederate SC inbred is trying yet again, but will fail.
I dunno, I don't really see it "around" anymore. At least not naturally (ie: some new smoking gun type of thing)
I think back in the day people drew their conclusions and moved on. I feel the average attention span for rehashes is pretty low, and can easily turn into annoying.
Yeah that's a good point. But Gowdy is going to call hrc in may to answer questions.
EN is One guy I just can't read. Afaik he still thinks Chris Christie is a viable candidates? Like who is your ideal candidate EN?
Why wouldn't he be? He's a good speaker. Has a national brand. Can debate. Has big money backers.
And again?
That's starting to change. Atlantic groupers and sharks are starting to figure out that lionfish are on the menu.
Pretty cool video here
http://nypost.com/2015/02/26/lionfis...hocking-video/
I'm from NJ, I dislike Chris Christie a lot, but he knows how to make sausage (and eat it too apparently). He would have no problem veering towards the center if that would get him votes.
I'm not sure he is "viable", but I think he's one of the few GOP candidates that realistically would be willing to "adapt" his rhetoric to the middle, which I think in this day and age is critical to win elections.
I don't really have a candidate. I've only been a citizen for about 9 years, so I didn't grow up in this red-team, blue-team battle. Before then, when I had a green card or a work visa, I was merely a spectator, so I could take some distance and look.
I find there's a lot of "dogma" in political philosophies here. For example, I generally prefer fiscal conservatism, but I understand that at certain times, deficit spending makes a lot of sense in the macroeconomic outlook.
On the other hand, I abhor social conservatism. That's non-negotiable for me. I find social conservatives to be like dinosaurs that while their goals might be noble, they're for the most part laughably disconnected from reality.
So, in general, I'm more concerned about self-preservation, and in that sense, I would rather prefer if neither party really gets a chance to entrench themselves in power. That's why I would really like if the next prez is a Republican, and we get some of that pendulum of power swinging.
Plus you can tell Hilary is a neocon/hawk from a mile away.
So there you have it.
Republican Clinton Cash Scandal Collapses Before The Book Is Even Released
The book has not been released yet, but instead of blowing up into a major story that will rock the 2016 election, Clinton Cash is poised to join the dusty pile of failed Clinton conspiracies of years past.
Rand Paul has been talking up Clinton Cash as the game changer that would disqualify Hillary Clinton from office, but what the episode demonstrated is how out of touch with reality Republicans are, and how eager some in the mainstream press (and Spurstalk rightwingnuts, rednecks, bubbas, Kock Bros suckers!
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/...iticus+USA+%29
BENGHAZI FOREVER!
Huh? My list of what?
pgardn in the morning I watch Morning Joe while I get my kids and myself ready. If I have time, in the day, I go through my feedly, which has SA Investor Daily, USAToday, Lifehacker, Consumerist, Bankrate.org, grantland, deadspin, coffeegeek, sprudge, economist, forbes, entrepreneur, cato, army times, stratfor. At night I watch brett bair. If I listen to talk radio it's Michael Medved. I also check out Drudge, RealClearPolitics. I love reading newspapers. Mainly WSJ but always try the NYT. What's your list professor?
I like long walks on the beach and candlight dinners. I cannot stand bad breathe and people who think you should spend your free time either: reading ridiculous amounts of articles about a particular subject (by different biased writers) to be able to understand a situation; believing that someone who reads or watches a biased writer is then their lap dog, believing everything they believe; or think they can psychoanalyze someone by less than twenty posts on a sports forum. It's pretentious and douchy. Which I am not.
Not my own words but what do you think?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...investors.html
- Ian Telfer, who was Uranium One's chairman at the time it was being taken over by Rosatom, did donate money to the Clinton Foundation. However, he told the Financial Post that he committed those funds to the Foundation in 2008, "before Uranium One had any negotiations with the Russians, and the donations he has made since then were part of that initial pledge." Hillary Clinton also did not become secretary of state until 2009.
- Frank Giustra, a Canadian businessman who the Times noted also donated to the Clinton Foundation and who owned the predecessor to Uranium One before its sale to the Russians, sold his personal stake in the company in 2007. The proposed sale of Uranium One occurred in 2010. Giustra himself released a statement criticizing the Times' reporting, calling it "wildly speculative, innuendo-laced," and inaccurate, and noting that contrary to the Times' claim that Bill Clinton had flown with him to conclude a stage in the Uranium deal, "Bill Clinton had nothing to do with" that purchase.
- The State Department only had one vote on the nine-member Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that approved the deal. Other agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, Commerce, and Justice, also weighed in.
- The chairman of the CFIUS is the Treasury secretary, not secretary of state.
- Rosatom had to get approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is an independent agency outside of the secretary of state's influence.
- Utah's local nuclear regulator also had to sign off on the deal, as it involved mills in the state.
- Former assistant secretary of state Jose Fernandez, who was the State Department's principal representative on CFIUS, said, "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."
Thats more than I wanted but thanks.
I like to know what people read so I can check it out and add to my list.
I like foreign affairs in general. But I usually am not close enough to the situation, the history, etc...
I like to read because I can't possibly be intimately associated with topics other people have spent their lives thinking about, or actually living. So when I want to know about Libya, I read. When I want to know about my wife's horse, I ask my wife.
And I am relieved to know you are not douchy and use mouthwash.
Boots, what have you got?
You can take a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's word for it? But truthfully, that just seems like a way for the vultures to keep doing what they do. By pushing this notion that "experts" are the only ones who can have a say in something. Especially since the "experts" have the same exact amount of hands on knowledge as us.
Oh I also like PoachedEgg.
foreign affairs interests me too. If you have any good sites, I would love to add to my list. realclearpolitics has a defense and history section that has a good collection. It's not right leaning like their main page is. But I'm a conservative so maybe it just seems like common sense to me.
essentially, sharks swim witrh their mouths open, ready to engulf incidental or volunteer prey, occasionally including inanimate objects.
I think you cannot do it in your own words.
it's a timeline. without more information, it isn't more than that.
The Guardian; liberal UK; Bash our frontier mentality of reliance and responsibility of the individual, why can't we just all help each other theme which I find a fascinating general conondrum (good of the individual v. the good of the society) both sides of the political spectrum constantly flip flop on this and don't even realize it. IMO of course.
Der Speigel; Germany; very good on Europeans view and others view of the U.S.; Also good stuff on Euro relations with Russia. The paper criticizes and applauds different American foreign policy stances. "Germany should be more like Amerca, Germany should be less like America" seems to seep out in articles. This is high value stuff for me.
I value honest experts. Maybe my background in science, combined with the ranting on the site (deniers of evolution; boots rants all GMO must be bad), have had too much of an effect. People that have a very poor understanding of a subject feel free to form non logic based, absurd opinions. So this might lead to my relying on experts and disagreement among experts.
The Clinton Foundation has a complicated structure, including 11 charitable initiatives, some of which have at times incorporated separately and filed
?So the Clinton Foundation made mistakes in reporting foreign donations for taxes, and disclosing. Apparently because complexity and Canadian law. That's all I can tease out as an explanation to my previous question to the board. The above Wa Po today. This is not satisfactory imo.
"boots rants all GMO must be bad"
true. prove otherwise.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions